Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sinha and Narayan JJ.
Khub Narain Missir
Versus
Ramchandra Narain Dass
Appeal from Original Decree No. 274 of 1945 ; 275 of 1945 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 25, 1950
RELIGIOUS TRUST - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ACT XIV [14] OF 1920 - APPLICABILITY - CONDITIONS - PUBLIC INSTITUTION - PRIVATE TRUST - DISTINCTION - MAHANTH - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - MISFEASANCE AND MALVERSATION - ACCOUNTABILITY - PUBLIC TRUST - PRIVATE TRUST - DISTINCTION - ACT XIV [14] OF 1920 - APPLICABILITY - CONDITIONS - PUBLIC INSTITUTION - PRIVATE TRUST - DISTINCTION - MAHANTH - REMOVAL FROM OFFICE - MISFEASANCE AND MALVERSATION - ACCOUNTABILITY
Fact of the Case:
Two suits were filed, one by the Mahanth of an asthal (temple) seeking a declaration that the properties appertaining to the asthal were private trust properties and not subject to Act XIV [14] of 1920, and the other by members of the Hindu public seeking the removal of the Mahanth from office and an accounting of the asthal funds, alleging breaches of trust.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the asthal was a private institution and that the properties appertaining to it were held on private trust, not for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The Court further held that the Mahanth had not been acting like a prudent manager but that the public could not complain against it since the trust was not a public trust.
Issues: 1. Whether the properties appertaining to the asthal were held on trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and whether the Mahanth had rendered himself liable to removal from his office on account of his alleged misfeasance and malversation. 2. Whether the asthal was a public institution and the properties appertaining to it were held for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To determine whether a trust is a public trust, the Court must investigate the origin of the institution, how it has been developed, and its raison detre. 2. The onus is on the appellants to show that a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature had been created. 3. The mere fact that a temple is open to the public and that people use it for worship and make offerings does not make it a public institution. 4. The expression "Vishnuprit" or "Sriprit" and the expression "Shishyopshishya-mili" do not indicate that the dedication was for public use. 5. The entry in the survey record, which carries a presumption of correctness, goes to show that the Mahanth was treated as the sole owner of the dedicated lands. 6. The statements of facts in a previous judgment cannot be admissible in a subsequent case to decide the points which are in issue in that case. 7. The mere fact that a property had descended from guru to chela does not warrant a presumption that it is a religious property. 8. To constitute a trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature within the meaning of Act XIV [14] of 1920, the author or authors of the trust must be ascertained, and the intention to create a trust must be indicated by words or acts with reasonable certainty.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Narayan, J.
1. Appeal No. 274 arises out of Title Suit No. 10 of 1943 and App. No. 275 arises out of Title Suit No. 3 of 1943. In Suit No. 10 of 1943, which was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga on 8-2-1943, the plaintiff was Mahanth Ramchandra Narain Dass and the defendants ware Khub Narain Missir, Ramkishun Thakur, Shubhnarain Pande and Ramsunder Pande, and in Suit No. 3 of 1943, which was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of Darbhanga, the plaintiffs were one Rambihari Thakur and Khub Narain Missir, defendant 1 of Suit No. 10 of 1943. The defendants of Suit No. 10 had filed an application under Sec.3 of Act XIV [14] of 1920 before the District Judge of Darbhanga for directing the Mahanth to furnish accounts for being examined and audited, and the then District Judge directed the Mahanth to produce the accounts for the years 1345, 1346 and 1347. The Mahanth moved this Court is civil revision against this order, but his application was dismissed. The Mahanth then filed Title Suit No. 10 of 1943 for a declaration that the
"properties and temple appertaining to the asthal were private trust to which Act XIV [14] of 1920 was inapplicable, and that as such the order of the District Judge dated 5-7-1941 and the order of the High Court dated 18-3-1942 were illegal, ultra vires and void."
In the meantime Khub Narain Missir and one Rambihari Thakur had moved the Advocate-General of Bihar for giving his consent for the institution of a suit under Section 92, Civil P. C. against the Mahanth. The consent of the Advocate-General was obtained on 13-4-1943, and thereupon Khub Narain and Rambihari instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1943. While the contention of the Mahanth is the suit instituted by him was that the properties appertaining to the asthal had not been dedicated for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature, and no trust either express or constructive had bean created, the case which Rambihari and Khub Narain made out in their own plaint was that the temple was a public temple and that the properties attached to it were debottar and trust properties. The allegations substantially wore that in the said asthal there is a public temple in which the idols of Sri Ramji, Jankiji and Lachhmanji were installed, and that the said asthal owned and possessed considerable properties the income of which was spent in maintaining the ashthal and acquiring other properties for religious and charitable purposes. It was further alleged that the defendant since his accession to the office of Mahanth had wasted the asthal properties and had been leading an immoral life. The plaintiffs instituted this suit as members of the Hindu public, and their alleged cause of action was that the defendant had committed breaches of the trust. The prayer was that the Mahanth be removed from the office and another suitable person be appointed in his place. It was farther prayed that the Mahanth be ordered to render accounts of the funds of the asthal which had come into his hands, and if it be found that he had misappropriated any money belonging to the asthal, a decree for the recovery of the same may be passed against him personally.
2. Both the suits were heard together by the learned District Judge, who, by his judgment dated 7-8-1945, decreed Title Suit No. 10 of 1943 which had been instituted by the Mahanth declaring that the properties detailed in the schedules attached to the plaint of the Mahanth were properties to which Act XIV [14] of 1920 was not applicable. The learned Judge dismissed Title Suit No. 3 of 1943 on the finding that it had not been established that there was a trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and that consequently Section 92, Civil P. C., was inapplicable. Rambihari Thakur and Khub Narain Missir, the plaintiffs of Suit No. 3 of 1943, have preferred F.A. No. 275 of 1945 against the decision of that suit, and the four defendants of Suit No. 10 of 1943 have p
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
